The government has moved to hose down speculation that it will scrap the renewable energy target saying it remains committed to the policy.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said on Monday that the government's position was to "keep the renewable energy target in place" amid speculation Prime Minister Tony Abbott and senior frontbenchers were moving to dump it.

It comes after The Australian Financial Review reported on Monday that Mr Abbott had asked the chair of a review of the RET to do more work on the option of abolishing the target.

Advertisement

Until now, it was considered that the review, led by climate sceptic businessman Dick Warburton, was more likely to recommend the target be scaled back rather than abolished altogether.

Environment Minster Greg Hunt is reported to be unhappy with moves by Mr Abbott, Treasurer Joe Hockey and Senator Cormann to abolish the RET under a scenario that would close the scheme to new entrants.

ON ABC radio on Monday, Senator Cormann would not confirm that such a plan was afoot, but he said the government intended to keep the target in place.

"Our position is to keep the renewable energy target in place," he said.

"The government remains committed to the renewable energy target, that is our policy.

"We are currently waiting for the results of a review which is on the way and obviously we'll make decisions once that review is received in an orderly and methodical fashion."

Shadow assistant treasurer Andrew Leigh told Sky News on Monday that the government should keep the target, which he said had enjoyed "bipartisan support since its inception".

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is among the business groups that have written submissions to the government in favour of abolishing the RET.

Other business groups have demanded the so-called "true" 20 per cent scenario, which would cut the target back to about 27,000 gigawatt hours of renewable energy production by 2020.

The current RET of 41,000 GwH, originally estimated to represent 20 per cent of Australia's power supply by 2020, is now estimated to be closer to 27 per cent.

87 comments

In the LNP opposite world, this must mean the end of the RET. Tough Tones can now show his backers that he can overrule Cormann. That will then allow the fossil fuel generators to operate without competition from renewables. Look forward to the ever increasing electricity prices.

Commenter

bg2

Date and time

August 18, 2014, 7:49AM

And of course the chorus of disapproval from round the world where more and more countries appreciate the need to retrain carbon pollution while we open new mines and transport the stuff through ports placed perilously next to our greatest tourist asset the great Barrier Reef! We are not worthy of this magnificent country the indigenous people have cared for for 40,000 years. Like the prodigal son we squander resources and call it freedom. A two year old would know better!

Commenter

Clive

Location

Manly West

Date and time

August 18, 2014, 8:19AM

Dumping the Renewable Energy Target would increase the reasons for dumping the Liberal Party because they have no Climate Change policy in place. Rather than be seen as complete Climate Change deniers they have decided, for self-preservation, to keep the RET - hopefully not in a diluted form. Most Australians know about the dangers of Climate Change and want to join with the rest of the world to combat it for the future of our children and grand-children and our environment - the Liberal Party and Big Business don't seem to care about our future!

Commenter

Darcy

Location

Sydney

Date and time

August 18, 2014, 8:31AM

@BG2: "That will then allow the fossil fuel generators to operate without competition from renewables."

Exactly. When what we need is an emergency transition to 100 percent renewable energy generation, this government is moving in the opposite direction. The fact that the RET as currently set out will result in 27 percent renewables rather than 20 percent is a positive, not a negative.

And the real agenda here is not about reducing prices for consumers, because the RET will actually cause wholesale prices to fall. It's about protecting the sunk capital of coal fired power generating companies. As the story indicates, cutting the RET would increase their profits by $10b in the next 15 years. That's money out of our pockets.

Phoney Tony and the Round Earth Sceptics should be booed off the stage.

Commenter

Greg Platt

Location

Brunswick

Date and time

August 18, 2014, 9:29AM

Treasury estimates have shown that reducing our carbon emissions between 40-60% by 2030 through the implementation of renewable energy technologies would have an effect so small on the economies growth that it couldn't be measured. Of course the fossil fuel industry would be the big loser in this. Hence the Liberal menace will do everything in their power to stop it.

Commenter

GOV

Location

Sydney

Date and time

August 18, 2014, 9:38AM

There are some strange comments here! Firstly, renewables are far more expensive than fossil fuels, so reducing the RET will not increase power prices - actually the reverse. The reason they subsidise renewables is because they are not competitive.High levels of solar panels will actually cause prices to rise. There is no economic way to store power from renewables, so the size of the fossil fuel part of the grid doesn't actually reduce when you increase solar power as the gird size is set for peak demand. Since peak demand comes in the evening, solar is no use. What has happened in Germany is that huge amounts of solar have meant that power generators have no market at all during the day, but peak demand doesn't change. So, they increase prices in the evenings and overall prices jump up - the power companies cannot sell power during the day so they need to charge more when they can, or they cannot keep the size of the grid together.Storing power from renewables is not viable either today or in the short or even medium term. Therefore, the idea that we can move to 100% renewables (@GregPlatt) is a total fantasy.In fact, both solar panels and batteries are TERRIBLE for the environment. They use large amounts of rare earth elements, are toxic and hard to recycle, and batteries in particular are not renewable at all - they only last a few years! Of course, why let the facts get in the way of a good anti-LNP rant?

Commenter

Archer101

Location

Sydney

Date and time

August 18, 2014, 1:11PM

@ Archie101... what an ignorant baseless comment. You obviously have no idea about the cost of renewable energy. If you'd care to do some research you will, in fact find that renewables are now very competitive with coal and that is after the massive subsidies that the cfoal industry currently receive (and want to retain sans competition) Look at the amount of tax Glencore et al paid in the last year and you will see that, we the taxpayer are subsisdising this lot an enormous amount - and that is not to mention the other miners. I think you'll find in comparison solar has a minscule level of subsidy.

Also your comment about no baseload sustainable power is sans fact. You obviously have not heard of wind (over 70% of many Scandanavian countries and 30 % of South Aust) as well as molten salt technology...In the last quarter alone the US and China spent over $60 billion on sustainable energy, whilst we spent $40 million the lowest level since 2001. Also there is tidal current technology and an Australian company is the leader in this field but mainly in a country that values sustainable energy the UK.... (who incidentally want 80% renewables by 2050 - just like the rest if the world).

Perhaps you've heard of Warren Buffett who reckons that sustainable energy will be the greatest business driver of the 21st century and he has spent over $15 billion of his own money in the US in this field.

The problem we have is a lot of ignorant.. and it seems LNP supporters who are unable to recognise the business opportunity that sustainable energy offers. This far in Aust over 18,000 work directly in solar and that's without trying more than at ford, holden and toyota

Commenter

n720ute

Location

North Coast NSW

Date and time

August 18, 2014, 1:53PM

@ Archer 101, Consider building more Dams, the water can be released at night, powering hydro electricity. Oh, I forgot, Dams are bad for the environment, better to have an electricity powered Desal Plant.

Commenter

Kingstondude

Location

Malaysia atm

Date and time

August 18, 2014, 1:59PM

Archer 101The LNP claims to be the responsible, dry economic managers. Economics 101 tells us about supply and demand. When supply goes up (adding renewables) and demand goes down (as it has in the last 5 years) then prices are meant to drop. Of course that would be disastrous for the fossil fuel generators, so it hasn't happened, instead prices have jumped up. Now that can only happen if the market is not free. In other words, governments have been massively subsidizing coal.Renewables have had some subsidies for the capital costs. But once installed, their unit cost is very low, so they become super competitive. Coal won't be able to compete, so will demand, and probably get, massive ongoing subsidies or go broke.You seem to live in a world where a generator has to achieve an ever increasing revenue stream. Trouble is, the coal power generation industry is about to go the way of Kodak.

Commenter

bg2

Date and time

August 18, 2014, 2:26PM

So now Lambie is on PUPs case and wanting to repeal the RET. Someone is courting our Jacquie.